RLV Working Group

1. RLV Working Group Presentation to the COMSTAC Michael S. Kelly 26 May 2005

2. Previous Action Items • Provide AST With IR&D Topic Proposals for FY 2006 • Status: Closed • Provide Consensus Comments on the Guide to Commercial RLV Operations and Maintenance • Status: Closed

3. Experimental Permit GuidelinesRandy Repcheck, FAA/AST • Experimental Permit Guidelines were issued on May 25, 2005 • Guidelines to be used by applicants as interim guidance until final regulations are issued • Experimental permits: • Have reduced application requirements compared to a license • Will authorize unlimited flights of reusable suborbital rockets within one or more operating areas • Require “key flight safety events” to be conducted over unpopulated or sparsely populated areas

4. AIAA Guide to the Identification of Safety-Critical Hardware Items for RLV DevelopersCraig Day, AIAA • Cooperative effort between industy/gov’t to develop process for identification of safety-critical RLV hardware • Document released on 1 May - available through AIAA and AST websites • Established solid model for possible future collaboration between industry and government on important issues

5. ITAR IssuesJeff Greason, XCOR Aerospace • ITAR, once the nemesis of the U.S. satellite industry, is back to undercut progress in RLV development • No longer the nemesis of the satellite industry, which it killed • As with satellites, the main issue is the inability of RLV companies to deal with the primary space insurers, which are mostly European • Also, the chief customer for RLVs, Sir Richard Branson, is British • Time to acknowledge that ITAR has hurt national security by causing us to lose our technological edge over foreign countries • Time for COMSTAC to once again weigh in on the issue in any appropriate manner possible

6. Guide to Commercial RLV Operations and MaintenanceChuck Larsen, FAA/AST • Provided update on changes to the Preliminary Guidelines for Commercial RLV Operations and Maintenance • Resulted in present document “Guide to Commercial RLV Operations and Maintenance” • This Guide utilized the RLV Working Group’s consensus comments to the Preliminary Guidelines to a great extent • The Guide will be used for many years while operational experience is gained before RLV O&M regulations are developed • Comments to the Guide are welcomed and encouraged

7. RLV Crew Training SchoolGeorge Tyson, Orbital Commerce Project Overview • OCP • Training company • School based on CFR part 141 • Courses to be offered – Suborbital pilot & payload specialist • Advantages of using a flight school • Cost of training is reduced for RLV operators • Increase safety through consistency of training • Guidelines / regulations questions • How are schools licensed? • How are training devices & processes certified?

8. The “Adventure” Approach Intended to Jump Start the Industry Will it Really Do So? Is the (High?) Risk “Adventure” Market Large Enough, at a Sufficient Price Point, to Get Things Started? Is (High?) Risk Adventure the Way the Industry Wishes to Portray Itself? Perpetuates the “Right Stuff” Image of Space Flight, Albeit Opening it to the General Public The “Airline” Approach Intended to Start the Industry as “Safety Mature” From the Outset Is That Possible? Is the Investment Base Sufficient to Support the Larger Up-Front Cost of Providing Safety Maturity Is Airline-like Safety Possible for Space Flight? Is it Necessary? Does the Public Require This Level of Safety, or are People Willing to Take Calculated Risk (as They do Every Single Day. . .)? Two Views of Space TourismMichael S. Kelly, Chairman, RLV Working Group

9. Action Items • RLV Working Group to provide comments on Experimental Permit Guidelines • FAA/AST to identify appropriate channels (if any) by which COMSTAC as a body can express its concerns over ITAR • Chairman to remind each presenter to provide summary chart